Crime prevention | AQA A-Level Sociology
Updated: 6 days ago
For Specification 7192
AQA A-Level Sociology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 70 to 80 minutes
Crime prevention attempts to reduce the likelihood that offending will occur, but sociologists disagree about which strategies are most effective. This Crime prevention A-Level Sociology revision page examines situational, environmental and social or community approaches, including target hardening, surveillance, zero tolerance, reducing deprivation and multi-agency working. It also considers major limitations such as displacement, unequal control and failure to address the causes of crime. AQA explicitly requires students to study prevention alongside crime control, surveillance and punishment. This lesson develops approaches to controlling crime [Crime control] and surveillance as social control [Surveillance].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain different sociological approaches to crime prevention.
Distinguish situational, environmental and social or community crime prevention.
Explain how target hardening, surveillance, zero tolerance and multi-agency strategies may reduce crime.
Analyse how different explanations of crime lead to different prevention strategies.
Explain limitations including displacement and failure to address underlying causes.
Evaluate sociological explanations of the effectiveness of crime prevention.
Revision Notes 📚
Crime prevention A-Level Sociology revision
AQA requires students to study crime control, surveillance, prevention and punishment, together with victims and the criminal justice system and other agencies.
Crime prevention is therefore one part of the wider process of controlling crime.
AQA's assessment material recognises several broad approaches:
situational crime prevention;
environmental crime prevention;
social and community crime prevention.
It also recognises individual strategies including:
target hardening;
surveillance;
zero tolerance;
reducing poverty and unemployment;
punishment;
multi-agency approaches.
The key sociological question is not simply:
"What can be done about crime?"
It is:
What explanation of crime lies behind a prevention strategy, and how far is that strategy likely to work?
What is crime prevention?
Crime prevention refers to strategies intended to reduce the likelihood or occurrence of crime.
Different strategies target different parts of the crime problem.
Some focus on:
the opportunity to offend;
the risks involved in offending;
the physical or social environment;
the social causes associated with offending;
the offender;
cooperation between different agencies.
This is why crime prevention cannot be reduced to a single approach.
Crime prevention and crime control
Crime prevention is closely related to crime control, but the terms should not automatically be treated as identical.
Crime control is the broader process of regulating and responding to criminal behaviour.
Crime prevention focuses more specifically on strategies intended to reduce the likelihood of crime.
However, AQA's 2022 mark scheme shows that the boundary is not completely rigid. It accepts punishment and imprisonment as a crime-prevention strategy where imprisonment prevents an offender from committing further offences in wider society.
The relationship is therefore best understood as:
crime prevention is one important part of wider crime control
The broader sociological approaches are covered in [Crime control].
Situational crime prevention
What is situational crime prevention?
Situational crime prevention attempts to reduce the opportunities for crime.
AQA's specimen assessment states directly that situational crime prevention strategies aim to reduce criminal opportunities. It also states that these strategies assume offenders may make rational decisions based on the perceived risks and benefits of crime.
The central process is:
change the situation → increase difficulty or risk → make crime less attractive → possible reduction in offending
Situational prevention therefore concentrates on the immediate circumstances in which offending might occur.
Rational choice
Situational prevention is closely connected with rational choice.
The assumption is that potential offenders may weigh:
possible benefit of offending
against:
risk and potential cost
If the perceived risk rises sufficiently, the individual may choose not to offend.
For example:
greater chance of detection → greater perceived cost → reduced attractiveness of crime
This logic also appears in Right Realist approaches to crime control [Crime control].
Target hardening
Target hardening means making a potential target more difficult or risky to attack.
AQA's 2022 mark scheme gives increased surveillance as an example and explains that people may be less likely to offend when they think they are likely to be caught.
AQA's specimen material similarly gives a burglar alarm as an example of situational prevention.
The process is:
target hardening → greater difficulty or detection risk → reduced opportunity → possible deterrence
The important examination skill is to explain how the measure is intended to prevent crime.
Simply naming a burglar alarm is not enough.
Surveillance as situational prevention
Surveillance can form part of target hardening because monitoring can increase the perceived likelihood of detection.
The intended process is:
surveillance → increased perceived risk of being caught → possible deterrence
However, surveillance may also:
displace crime;
disproportionately target some groups;
increase recorded crime by detecting more offences.
These limitations are developed fully in surveillance and social control [Surveillance].
Evaluating situational crime prevention
AQA's specimen mark scheme provides several explicit criticisms of situational prevention:
crime may be displaced rather than reduced;
crime may not always involve rational choice;
the strategy may be less effective for corporate or white-collar crime;
it may ignore the causes of crime.
These are central evaluation points.
Displacement
Displacement occurs when offending moves rather than disappears.
For example:
one target becomes difficult → offender chooses another target → crime continues elsewhere
This creates a major problem when assessing prevention.
A reduction in crime at one protected location does not automatically demonstrate a fall in overall crime.
There may be:
local prevention without total prevention
This is one of the strongest evaluations of situational approaches.
Why displacement matters
Imagine that surveillance is introduced in one area and recorded offending there declines.
This might mean:
Interpretation A: offenders were successfully deterred.
But it could also mean:
Interpretation B: offenders moved to a location with less surveillance.
To evaluate a situational strategy properly, sociologists therefore need to consider what happens beyond the specific target or location.
This connects with the problems involved in identifying crime trends [Recent patterns and trends in crime].
Crime may not involve rational choice
Situational crime prevention assumes that changing risks and benefits can influence offenders.
However, AQA explicitly recognises that crime may not always be a rational choice.
If an offender does not carefully consider:
risk;
reward;
likelihood of detection;
then target hardening may have less influence than the strategy assumes.
This is an important form of evaluation because it challenges the theoretical assumption on which the strategy is based.
Situational prevention may ignore the causes of crime
AQA's specimen mark scheme also recognises that situational approaches may ignore the causes of crime.
A burglar alarm may make one burglary more difficult.
It does not necessarily change:
poverty;
unemployment;
relative deprivation;
marginalisation;
wider inequalities.
This creates the distinction between:
preventing an opportunity
and
addressing a cause
Left Realist and social or community approaches place much more emphasis on the second.
Situational prevention and corporate crime
AQA also explicitly recognises that situational prevention may be less effective for corporate or white-collar crime.
This demonstrates an important general principle:
A crime-prevention strategy that fits one type of offending may not fit every type.
A strategy designed to protect a physical target may be less relevant to offending occurring through:
occupational positions;
organisations;
powerful corporations.
This connects with social class and crime [Social class and crime].
Environmental crime prevention
What is environmental crime prevention?
AQA recognises environmental crime prevention as one of the overarching approaches students may use when discussing crime prevention.
Environmental approaches focus on changing the environment in ways intended to make crime:
more difficult;
more risky;
less attractive.
AQA's 2024 realist mark scheme identifies environmental crime prevention alongside:
target hardening;
zero tolerance;
surveillance;
broken windows theory.
The supplied sources identify these ideas as relevant but do not provide enough detail to justify an extended account of broken windows theory beyond its connection with environmental and Right Realist approaches.
Zero tolerance
Zero tolerance is explicitly recognised by AQA as a crime-prevention strategy.
The 2022 mark scheme explains that zero-tolerance strategies increase the risks of committing crime. If the perceived risks begin to outweigh the benefits, crime may become less likely.
The basic process is:
greater enforcement → increased risk → costs outweigh benefits → possible deterrence
Zero tolerance therefore shares the rational-choice assumptions found in situational crime prevention.
Evaluating zero tolerance
The source-supported theoretical issue is whether increasing risk actually changes offending behaviour.
If an offender responds rationally to higher risks, the strategy may deter crime.
However, criticisms of opportunity-based prevention remain relevant:
not all offending may be rational;
crime may move elsewhere;
the underlying causes of offending may remain.
A strong evaluation therefore analyses the mechanism rather than simply saying that zero tolerance is "too harsh" or "effective".
Social and community crime prevention
What is social and community crime prevention?
AQA also recognises social and community crime prevention as a broad approach.
This differs significantly from situational prevention.
Instead of focusing mainly on the immediate criminal opportunity, social and community approaches seek to address social circumstances associated with offending.
These may include:
poverty;
unemployment;
deprivation;
relative deprivation;
marginalisation;
social problems requiring support from several agencies.
The approach is therefore more closely associated with structural explanations of crime.
Reducing poverty and unemployment
AQA's 2022 mark scheme explicitly accepts reducing poverty and unemployment as a crime-prevention strategy.
The reasoning is:
poverty and unemployment reduced → inequality and deprivation reduced → relative deprivation reduced → likelihood of some offending may fall
This is a particularly important strategy because it targets an underlying social condition rather than simply an opportunity to offend.
It therefore connects strongly with Left Realism.
Relative deprivation
Relative deprivation refers to feeling disadvantaged when comparing oneself with others or with expected standards.
A social prevention approach may try to reduce conditions that produce these feelings.
The contrast with situational prevention is clear:
Situational approach: Make the crime more difficult.
Social approach: Change social conditions associated with the motivation or pressure to offend.
Neither approach necessarily has to explain every offence.
They are based on different assumptions about the causes of crime.
Left Realism and prevention
AQA's 2024 realist mark scheme identifies concepts including:
relative deprivation;
marginalisation;
multi-agency approaches;
social and community crime prevention.
Left Realists treat crime as a real problem but connect it strongly with structural inequalities.
Crime prevention therefore involves addressing:
deprivation;
inequality;
exclusion;
community problems.
This distinguishes Left Realism from Right Realist strategies that focus more heavily on risk and opportunity.
Marginalisation
Marginalisation refers to exclusion or powerlessness.
A Left Realist approach suggests that people experiencing marginalisation may be less integrated into conventional social institutions and may experience conditions associated with offending.
Crime prevention may therefore involve providing:
support;
opportunities;
community involvement;
coordinated assistance.
This leads directly to the use of multi-agency approaches.
Multi-agency crime prevention
What is a multi-agency approach?
A multi-agency approach involves different organisations working together to address crime and related social problems.
AQA's 2022 mark scheme gives a particularly clear example.
It states that:
police;
social workers;
teachers;
doctors
may increasingly work together to support individuals and reduce their risk of offending.
The process is:
different agencies share knowledge and support → problems better understood → appropriate support offered → risk of offending may fall
Why multi-agency working is different from policing alone
A policing-only response focuses heavily on:
detection;
enforcement;
formal control.
A multi-agency approach assumes offending can be related to a wider set of social circumstances.
Different agencies may therefore contribute different forms of expertise.
The strategy reflects the idea that preventing offending can involve more than simply responding after a crime has occurred.
This provides an important connection to the criminal justice system and other agencies [The criminal justice system and other agencies].
Evaluating multi-agency approaches
A strength of multi-agency prevention is that it can address several dimensions of an individual's circumstances rather than treating crime as an isolated act.
It is therefore consistent with explanations that emphasise:
deprivation;
marginalisation;
wider social causes.
In an examination, students can still compare its theoretical approach with situational strategies. Multi-agency working targets social circumstances, whereas target hardening mainly targets criminal opportunities.
Punishment as crime prevention
AQA's 2022 mark scheme also accepts punishment as a possible crime-prevention strategy.
It gives imprisonment as an example, arguing that people removed from wider society cannot commit further crime there during that period.
This is an incapacitation argument.
The process is:
offender imprisoned → opportunity to offend in wider society restricted → some further crime prevented
However, punishment has additional sociological purposes and limitations.
These are examined fully in the next lesson, sociological explanations of punishment [Punishment].
Punishment and prevention are not identical
Punishment occurs as a response to offending, but it may also be intended to prevent future crime.
It can potentially do this through:
incapacitation;
deterrence;
rehabilitation.
However, AQA treats punishment as a separate specification area as well as recognising it within prevention.
For this lesson, the key point is that some responses after an offence can also attempt to prevent future offending.
Situational versus social prevention
This is one of the most important comparisons to learn.
Situational prevention | Social and community prevention |
Focuses on immediate opportunities | Focuses on wider social causes |
Associated with rational choice | Associated with structural explanations |
Makes crime more difficult or risky | Attempts to reduce conditions associated with offending |
Target hardening | Reducing poverty and unemployment |
Surveillance | Community and multi-agency intervention |
Immediate and specific | Potentially broader and longer-term |
Can be criticised for displacement | Attempts to address causes rather than simply opportunities |
The disagreement reflects different explanations of crime.
Right Realism and crime prevention
Right Realism is closely associated with prevention based on:
rational choice;
target hardening;
surveillance;
zero tolerance;
situational prevention;
environmental prevention.
AQA's 2024 realist mark scheme explicitly recognises all of these concepts as relevant.
Right Realists emphasise practical strategies that change the risks and opportunities surrounding crime.
The broad assumption is:
more difficult + more risky = less attractive to offend
Strengths of Right Realist prevention
A situational or Right Realist approach offers a clear mechanism.
It can often be applied directly to specific criminal opportunities.
Rather than waiting for large-scale structural change, it attempts to make offending:
harder;
riskier;
more detectable.
This practical focus can make it attractive where the immediate aim is to protect a particular target.
However, its effectiveness depends on whether the offender responds to the change in risks.
Limitations of Right Realist prevention
AQA provides several direct criticisms through its specimen question:
displacement;
crime not always being rational;
limited relevance to some corporate and white-collar crime;
failure to address causes of crime.
A strong answer should connect each criticism to the theory.
For example:
Displacement challenges situational prevention because making one opportunity more difficult may change where an offender commits crime rather than changing the motivation to offend.
That is much stronger than writing simply:
"A weakness is displacement."
Left Realism and crime prevention
Left Realism also treats crime as a serious problem, but its prevention strategies follow from a more structural explanation.
Relevant concepts recognised by AQA include:
inequality;
relative deprivation;
marginalisation;
social and community prevention;
multi-agency approaches.
The basic relationship is:
social inequality → relative deprivation and marginalisation → possible offending
Prevention should therefore include:
reducing inequality and supporting communities → reduction in some pressures towards crime
Strengths of social prevention
One important strength is that social prevention attempts to address the causes of crime.
This directly responds to one of AQA's criticisms of situational prevention, that it can ignore why people become motivated to offend in the first place.
For example:
situational response: install a security measure.
social response: address deprivation associated with offending.
The strategies work at different levels.
Evaluating social prevention
Social prevention has the theoretical advantage of addressing structural factors such as inequality and deprivation.
However, it should not automatically be assumed that every crime is caused by these factors.
AQA's 2024 realist material includes a wide range of explanations and strategies, showing that Realist approaches themselves contain substantial disagreement over the causes of crime.
A strong evaluation therefore asks:
Which crime is being prevented?
What does the strategy assume causes that crime?
Does the proposed strategy actually address that cause?
Environmental versus social prevention
Environmental and social prevention can also be contrasted.
Environmental approach
Changes the immediate environment to reduce opportunities or increase risks.
Social approach
Changes social circumstances associated with crime.
The contrast is:
environment → opportunity
versus
social structure or community → causes
This is useful because students sometimes treat all prevention strategies as versions of "making crime harder".
AQA recognises a much broader range.
Prevention and surveillance
Surveillance illustrates the overlap between prevention topics.
It can be:
a target-hardening strategy;
a method of increasing risk;
a form of formal social control;
a method of crime detection.
However, AQA also recognises limitations such as:
resistance;
displacement;
unequal targeting;
hidden crime.
These are covered in detail in [Surveillance].
For a crime-prevention question, use surveillance to explain how crime might be prevented, rather than turning the answer into a general essay about surveillance.
Prevention and the causes of crime
The central debate can be summarised as:
Opportunity explanation
Crime occurs when opportunities are available.
Response: reduce opportunities.
Rational-choice explanation
Offenders respond to risks and rewards.
Response: increase risks and reduce rewards.
Structural explanation
Crime is related to inequality, deprivation or marginalisation.
Response: tackle those social conditions.
Social-control explanation
Crime may be prevented by restricting offending or increasing formal controls.
Response: surveillance, enforcement or punishment.
Different strategies therefore embody different sociological assumptions.
Crime prevention and social inequality
Strategies can also have unequal effects.
Surveillance and other forms of situational control may be directed more strongly at particular social groups.
This matters because crime prevention may affect:
who is monitored;
who is detected;
who becomes officially recorded as criminal.
Therefore, evaluation should sometimes ask not just:
"Does this prevent crime?"
but:
"How is this prevention strategy distributed between social groups?"
This develops the core AQA theme of social differentiation, power and stratification.
Prevention versus detection
These concepts should also be distinguished.
Prevention seeks to stop crime from occurring.
Detection identifies offending that has occurred or is occurring.
Some strategies can do both.
For example, surveillance might:
deter a potential offender, producing prevention;
identify an offence, producing detection.
These outcomes should not be confused.
A rise in recorded crime after surveillance increases may reflect greater detection rather than failed prevention.
Prevention versus displacement
A strategy can successfully protect one target without successfully reducing overall crime.
This is why displacement is so important.
Ask:
Did the crime stop?
or:
Did the crime move?
AQA's specimen mark scheme directly uses target hardening causing displacement as an example of why situational prevention may not be effective.
In an exam, always explain the consequence:
displacement means the strategy may reduce crime in one situation without reducing the total amount of crime.
Prevention and different types of crime
Crime prevention should not be evaluated as if all crimes are identical.
AQA's specimen mark scheme explicitly accepts the argument that situational prevention may be less effective for corporate or white-collar crime.
This suggests a broader principle:
The effectiveness of a prevention strategy depends partly on the type of crime and the process that produces it.
A physical security measure might fit burglary better than corporate offending.
A deprivation-based strategy might explain some forms of crime better than others.
There is no requirement to assume that one strategy can prevent every offence.
Does prevention need to tackle root causes?
This is one of the major sociological debates.
Argument for opportunity-based prevention
Crime can be reduced by changing immediate opportunities even if the deeper motivation remains.
Criticism
If the causes of offending remain, offenders may:
find another target;
change the method of offending;
move the offence elsewhere.
Argument for social prevention
Changing structural circumstances may reduce the motivation or pressure associated with crime.
This debate is a strong basis for evaluation because it directly compares different levels of explanation.
Short-term and structural prevention
Crime-prevention approaches can also differ in their timescale.
Situational strategies often target an immediate opportunity.
Social strategies attempt to change wider social circumstances.
This means they may be judged using different questions.
For situational prevention:
Did the target become safer?
Was crime displaced?
For social prevention:
Were the relevant social causes actually reduced?
Did offending associated with those conditions decline?
Avoid comparing strategies without considering what each was designed to achieve.
Comparing major crime-prevention approaches
Approach | Main assumption | AQA-supported strategies | Main evaluation issue |
Situational prevention | Crime depends partly on opportunity | Target hardening, surveillance | Displacement, rational-choice assumptions |
Environmental prevention | Settings can be changed to discourage crime | Zero tolerance, environmental control, surveillance | May focus on immediate conditions rather than causes |
Social/community prevention | Social conditions contribute to offending | Reducing poverty and unemployment, community approaches | Must demonstrate that targeted conditions actually contribute to the crime |
Multi-agency prevention | Offending can involve several connected social problems | Cooperation between police, teachers, doctors and social workers | Practical effectiveness is not detailed in the supplied source |
Punitive prevention | Restricting or discouraging offenders can prevent further crime | Imprisonment | Punishment has wider purposes and limitations examined separately |
This table can be used as a framework for planning longer answers.
Evaluating whether crime prevention works
A useful AO3 checklist is to ask five questions.
1. Does the strategy prevent crime or displace it?
A fall at one target is not necessarily an overall fall.
2. Does the strategy rely on rational choice?
If it does, would all offenders respond to changed risks?
3. Does it address the causes of offending?
Situational approaches are explicitly criticised by AQA for potentially ignoring causes.
4. Does the strategy fit the type of crime?
Situational strategies may not work equally well for corporate or white-collar offences.
5. Does prevention affect everyone equally?
Some forms of surveillance and formal control can disproportionately target particular groups.
These questions generate evaluation that is directly related to crime prevention.
Using sociological perspectives
AQA's 2024 mark scheme recognises thinkers and concepts relevant to both Left and Right Realist crime prevention, including Clarke, Cornish and Clarke, Felson, Lea and Young, Wilson and Kelling and Young.
You do not gain marks simply for naming sociologists.
A sociologist is useful when their work helps you explain:
why crime occurs;
why a prevention strategy follows from that explanation;
why the strategy may or may not succeed.
For example, a developed explanation of rational choice is more useful than simply writing "Clarke" with no argument.
Strategy is not the same as theory
This distinction is especially important because the 2022 examiner report identified it as a real student problem.
A theory or sociological approach explains crime.
Examples:
Right Realism;
Left Realism;
rational choice.
A crime-prevention strategy is something intended to reduce crime.
Examples:
target hardening;
reducing poverty;
multi-agency working.
AQA reported that some students drifted into theory when asked specifically for crime-prevention strategies.
A good response links the two but does not confuse them.
Linking theory and strategy
The strongest answers make the relationship explicit.
Example 1
Theory: Rational choice suggests offenders respond to risks and benefits.
Strategy: Target hardening increases the risks of offending.
Analysis: A potential offender may decide the crime is no longer worthwhile.
Evaluation: Crime may instead be displaced.
Example 2
Theory: Left Realism links crime to relative deprivation.
Strategy: Reduce poverty and unemployment.
Analysis: Reducing inequality may lessen feelings of relative deprivation associated with offending.
These chains demonstrate sociological understanding rather than simple description.
Building an evaluative essay
Suppose the question asks whether situational approaches are the most effective form of crime prevention.
A strong structure could be:
Situational prevention: reduce criminal opportunities.
Rational choice: increased risk may deter offenders.
Target hardening: use surveillance or other measures to protect targets.
Evaluate with displacement: crime may move rather than disappear.
Evaluate rational choice: not all crime involves calculated decision-making.
Evaluate by crime type: situational approaches may be less effective for corporate and white-collar crime.
Left Realist alternative: relative deprivation and marginalisation suggest prevention should tackle social inequalities.
Social/community prevention: reduce poverty and unemployment.
Multi-agency prevention: coordinated support may address several social problems.
Judgement: effectiveness depends on whether the strategy matches the causes and type of offending.
This directly compares explanations and strategies rather than creating disconnected paragraphs.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Crime prevention | Strategies intended to reduce the likelihood or occurrence of crime. | Use as the overall concept when comparing ways of reducing offending. |
Situational crime prevention | Prevention that aims to reduce opportunities for crime in particular situations. | Link to rational choice, target hardening and surveillance. |
Environmental crime prevention | Prevention that changes environments in ways intended to discourage offending. | Use when discussing environmental control and zero-tolerance approaches. |
Social and community crime prevention | Prevention that addresses social and community conditions associated with offending. | Link to poverty, unemployment, deprivation and Left Realism. |
Target hardening | Making a potential target harder or riskier to attack. | Use to explain opportunity-based prevention. |
Rational choice | The idea that offenders may compare the perceived risks and benefits of crime. | Use to explain why increasing risks may deter offending. |
Displacement | Crime moving to another target, location or situation instead of disappearing. | Use as a key criticism of situational prevention. |
Relative deprivation | Feeling disadvantaged compared with others or with expected standards. | Use to explain social prevention based on reducing inequality. |
Zero tolerance | A strategy intended to increase the risks and consequences attached to offending. | Use in Right Realist and environmental approaches. |
Multi-agency approach | Different agencies cooperating to address offending and related problems. | Use when explaining social and community prevention. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
AQA's 2022 examiner report contains direct lesson-specific guidance because Question 2 asked students about crime-prevention strategies.
Examiner hint: Make sure you provide a strategy when a question asks for a strategy. In 2022, some students drifted into sociological theory without actually identifying how crime would be prevented.
Examiner hint: Make each point genuinely different. AQA reported that some students repeated the same prevention strategy when three different strategies were required.
Examiner hint: Do not overwrite a 6-mark question. The 2022 crime-prevention question produced the greatest amount of overwriting on the paper, which may have affected students' timing on later questions.
Examiner hint: For an "outline three" question, a strong approach is one clear identification followed by a short development explaining how the strategy reduces crime. AQA's mark scheme awards two marks for each clearly outlined strategy.
Examiner hint: In longer theory questions, avoid simply placing one perspective next to another. The 2024 examiner report notes that evaluation was weaker where students wrote lengthy alternative-theory paragraphs without linking them to the argument being assessed.
Examiner hint: A long introduction is not needed for an extended Paper 3 response. Use the time to develop relevant sociological arguments and evaluation.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Naming a theory instead of a prevention strategy
Why this is incorrect: AQA's 2022 examiner report specifically identified students drifting into theory when they needed to provide strategies.
How to improve: Convert the theory into an action.
For example:
Right Realism → target hardening
Left Realism → reducing poverty or unemployment
Mistake: Treating all crime prevention as target hardening
Why this is incorrect: AQA recognises situational, environmental and social or community prevention, together with multi-agency approaches and punishment.
How to improve: Learn at least one clear strategy from each broad approach.
Mistake: Saying target hardening definitely reduces total crime
Why this is incorrect: AQA explicitly recognises displacement as a limitation.
How to improve: Distinguish:
crime reduced at one target
from:
crime reduced overall.
Mistake: Explaining displacement without stating why it is a criticism
Why this is incorrect: Merely naming displacement does not analyse effectiveness.
How to improve: Complete the reasoning:
crime moves elsewhere → overall offending may remain unchanged → prevention may be only local.
Mistake: Assuming all offending is rational
Why this is incorrect: AQA's specimen mark scheme explicitly identifies crime not being a rational choice as a criticism of situational prevention.
How to improve: Evaluate whether potential offenders would actually respond to changing risks and benefits.
Mistake: Ignoring underlying causes
Why this is incorrect: AQA explicitly accepts the criticism that situational crime prevention may ignore the causes of crime.
How to improve: Compare opportunity-based strategies with social approaches targeting poverty, inequality or relative deprivation.
Mistake: Assuming one prevention strategy works for all forms of crime
Why this is incorrect: AQA recognises that situational prevention may be less effective for corporate or white-collar crime.
How to improve: Always consider the type of crime before judging effectiveness.
Mistake: Repeating the same strategy in a 6-mark answer
Why this is incorrect: AQA's 2022 examiner report identified repetition as a problem.
How to improve:
Plan three headings before writing, for example:
target hardening;
reducing poverty;
multi-agency working.
Mistake: Writing an essay for a 6-mark question
Why this is incorrect: AQA specifically warns that overwriting short crime-prevention questions can damage timing.
How to improve: Use:
strategy + how it reduces crime
then move to the next distinct point.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define crime prevention. [1 mark]
Question 2
Explain one difference between situational and social crime prevention. [2 marks]
Question 3
Outline two ways in which target hardening may reduce crime. [4 marks]
Question 4
Outline three different crime-prevention strategies. [6 marks]
Question 5
Explain two reasons why situational crime prevention may fail to reduce overall offending. [4 marks]
Question 6
Read Item A and answer the question that follows.
Item A
Some crime-prevention strategies attempt to change the immediate situation in which offending might occur. They may make targets harder to attack or increase the offender's belief that they will be detected. These approaches assume that offenders respond to changes in risks and benefits.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two ways in which situational crime prevention may reduce crime. [10 marks]
Question 7
Read Item B and answer the question that follows.
Item B
Other crime-prevention approaches focus on the social circumstances associated with offending. Poverty and unemployment may contribute to feelings of relative deprivation, while some individuals experience problems that involve several social institutions.
Applying material from Item B, analyse two ways in which social and community crime-prevention strategies may reduce crime. [10 marks]
Question 8
Read Item C and answer the question that follows.
Item C
Situational approaches seek to prevent crime by reducing opportunities and increasing risks. However, crime may move to another setting, and not all offending results from rational choices. Other sociologists argue that prevention should address wider social conditions such as deprivation and marginalisation.
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate the view that situational crime prevention is the most effective way of reducing crime. [30 marks]
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
1 mark for an accurate definition referring to strategies intended to reduce the likelihood or occurrence of crime.
Example answer: Crime prevention refers to strategies intended to reduce the likelihood that crime will occur.
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks.
Example answer: Situational prevention focuses mainly on changing immediate opportunities for offending, whereas social crime prevention attempts to address wider social conditions associated with crime, such as deprivation.
One mark identifies the distinction and one further mark develops it.
Question 3
Award 2 marks for each of two developed ways.
Possible answers include:
Increasing detection risk: Surveillance may make offenders believe they are more likely to be caught, discouraging rational offenders.
Making the target more difficult: Security measures can increase the effort required to commit the offence, reducing its attractiveness.
The two points should explain different aspects of how target hardening may influence offending.
Question 4
Award 2 marks for each of three genuinely different strategies.
Possible answers include:
Target hardening: increased surveillance or security may deter offenders because they believe they are more likely to be caught.
Zero tolerance: stronger enforcement increases the risks associated with offending, potentially causing risks to outweigh benefits.
Reducing poverty and unemployment: reducing inequality and deprivation may reduce relative deprivation associated with offending.
Multi-agency working: police, teachers, doctors and social workers may cooperate to support individuals and reduce their risk of offending.
Punishment: imprisonment may prevent an offender from committing further offences in wider society during the period of incarceration.
Situational prevention: changing opportunities and increasing risks may discourage offending.
Social or community prevention: addressing wider social circumstances may reduce pressures towards crime.
One mark identifies the strategy and one further mark explains how it may reduce crime.
Question 5
Award 2 marks for each of two developed reasons.
Possible answers include:
Displacement: An offender may move to another target or location when the original opportunity becomes more difficult, meaning total offending does not necessarily fall.
Rational-choice limitation: If an offence is not based on a calculation of risks and benefits, increasing those risks may have little deterrent effect.
Ignoring causes: Situational measures may restrict an opportunity while leaving deprivation or other causes of offending unchanged.
Crime type: Situational methods may have limited effectiveness against forms such as corporate or white-collar crime.
Question 6
Students should develop two separate aspects of Item A.
Hook 1: making targets harder
Target hardening reduces the opportunity for offending. If committing the offence requires greater effort or becomes more difficult, a potential offender may abandon the attempt.
Hook 2: increasing the likelihood of detection
This can be developed through rational choice. Surveillance or other controls increase the perceived risk of being caught. If the risks begin to outweigh the expected benefits, an offender may decide not to commit the crime.
For analysis, students may explain that both processes operate by altering the immediate calculation surrounding the offence rather than necessarily changing its underlying causes.
8 to 10 marks: Good knowledge and understanding of two ways, two developed applications of Item A and clear analysis of how opportunity, risk and rational choice may reduce offending.
4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge with some successful application and analysis, although one point may be more developed.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge, weak application or general discussion of crime prevention without analysing situational mechanisms.
0 marks: No relevant material.
Question 7
Students should develop the two main hooks from Item B.
Hook 1: poverty, unemployment and relative deprivation
Reducing poverty or unemployment may reduce inequality and deprivation. This may lower feelings of relative deprivation that can contribute to some offending.
Hook 2: several social institutions
A multi-agency approach can involve police, social workers, teachers and doctors working together. Sharing expertise may enable individuals' problems to be better understood and appropriate support to be provided, reducing the risk of offending.
8 to 10 marks: Good knowledge and understanding of two approaches, two developed applications of Item B and clear analysis of how social or community prevention may reduce crime.
4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge with some successful application and analysis.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge, weak item application or general discussion of inequality without explaining prevention.
0 marks: No relevant material.
Question 8
This question requires knowledge and understanding, application, analysis and evaluation.
Indicative content may include:
Situational crime prevention
reducing criminal opportunities;
rational choice;
perceived risks and benefits;
target hardening;
surveillance;
security measures.
Students may argue that changing an immediate situation can make offending more difficult or risky and therefore deter some offenders.
Evaluation of situational prevention
displacement;
not all crime involving rational choice;
failure to address underlying causes;
limited relevance to some corporate or white-collar crime;
effectiveness varying according to type of offence.
AQA's specimen mark scheme explicitly recognises these arguments.
Environmental prevention
environmental crime prevention;
zero tolerance;
surveillance;
increasing risks.
Students may explain the relationship with Right Realist approaches.
Social and community prevention
poverty;
unemployment;
inequality;
deprivation;
relative deprivation;
marginalisation;
multi-agency working.
Students may use Left Realism to argue that effective prevention needs to address wider causes rather than only opportunities.
Punishment
incapacitation through imprisonment;
prevention of further offending within wider society.
Detailed theories of punishment are not required for this lesson but may be used where they directly evaluate prevention.
Right Realism
rational choice;
individual decisions;
opportunity;
increased risks;
target hardening;
zero tolerance.
Students may evaluate whether these assumptions fit all offenders and offences.
Left Realism
structural inequality;
relative deprivation;
marginalisation;
social and community prevention;
multi-agency approaches.
This provides a direct theoretical alternative to situational prevention.
Evaluation
Strong answers may consider:
whether crime is prevented or displaced;
whether offending is always rational;
whether immediate opportunities or underlying causes are more important;
whether different strategies suit different forms of crime;
whether social-control strategies affect groups equally;
whether combining situational and social approaches may provide a broader response than relying on one strategy.
25 to 30 marks: Sound, conceptually detailed knowledge of a range of crime-prevention approaches. Item material is applied accurately. Analysis and evaluation explicitly compare situational approaches with social, community and other strategies, evaluate rational choice, displacement and causes of offending, and reach a reasoned judgement.
19 to 24 marks: Accurate and reasonably broad or deep knowledge. Application is largely focused and there is some explicit evaluation, although parts may be incomplete.
13 to 18 marks: Largely accurate but narrower knowledge. Application may be limited and evaluation may rely mainly on juxtaposing different approaches.
7 to 12 marks: Limited and undeveloped knowledge with weak application and little evaluation.
1 to 6 marks: Very limited relevant material or a general discussion of crime control without sustained focus on prevention.
0 marks: No relevant material.
A strong conclusion should avoid claiming that one prevention strategy works equally well for every crime. Situational prevention may be effective where opportunities can be restricted and offenders respond to changing risks, but AQA-supported criticisms show that crime may be displaced, some offending may not involve rational calculation, and immediate measures may leave structural causes untouched. Social and community approaches attempt to address those causes through reductions in deprivation and coordinated support. The most convincing judgement is therefore that the effectiveness of crime prevention depends on the cause, type and context of the offending being targeted, rather than on a single universally effective strategy.
Comments